Explanation

"No- there has been a breach in warranty" is the correct answer. The key to answering this question lies in the fact that the specification in this example is a warranty rather than a condition of the contract. P.45 of the study guide explains that the Sale of Goods Act has implications on whether or not a specification is a condition, warranty or innominate term and it's all about whether the product is in 'good condition' and can be used for its intended purpose. In this example the eggs were used for their intended purpose and were in good condition (or Sarah wouldn't have put them in the cakes). Therefore in this example, the eggs needing to be free-range is a warranty of the contract not a condition. Therefore options A and B are both wrong. Answer C is also wrong because the question mentioned that the specification was included in the contract. If you want to know more about the implication of the Sale of Goods act on specifications see p.45.

Explanation

In the event of a minor breach, CIPS says it is best to work with the defaulting party by conducting progress meetings and collaboration. This is on p. 50 of the study guide

Explanation

The correct answers are 1, 3 and 5: exclusions should be narrowly defined and clearly state which types of liabilities are excluded, liability is a legal responsibility and liability cannot be excluded for injury resulting from negligence. These are all explained on p. 22. Liability is never there to publish anyone (this is a red herring answer that CIPS like to put into different questions and it's usually the wrong answer - no one should look to publish anyone else). The option 'Liability can only be limited where there is valid insurance' is not true. A contract can state any limitations on liability so long as it's agreed by both parties, they're fair and don't contradict any laws. The thing about not being able to exclude liability regarding personal injury is a Law in the UK.

Explanation

A limitation of liability caps a company's exposure to risk. In SOME cases this may mean that the responsibility passes to the other party- but not always. For this reason option 2 is correct and 4 isn't. Option 1 is the definition of liquidated damages and 3 is just a made-up answer. See p.20 for more information on Liability

Explanation

Yes- the supplier made an offer and Jenny accepted it by making a payment is the correct answer. The other three options are incorrect: 'yes- a counter offer has been made' = there is no counter-offer made in this example - a clarification is not a counter-offer / 'no- the clarification constitutes a conditional acceptance' = clarifications are not conditional acceptance / 'no- a contract has not been signed' = there doesn't need to be a signed document- acceptance can be through performance. Issuing the payment would be considered acceptance via performance. See p 2-12 for more information on conditional acceptance, counter offers and acceptance of offers.

Explanation

The correct answers are as follows:

Table Description automatically generated

This is a condition. Again the food being organic would be fundamental to the contract as the health of the llamas depend on it.

Explanation

The outcome is binding and enforceable is the correct answer. However the ruling can be appealed. Arbitration is a flexible approach, and the outcome doesn't set legal precedent. The role of the arbitrator is to reach a decision, only in mediation is the role of the third party to facilitate dialogue rather than reach a decision. See p.80 for more information on arbitration.